Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[Michael]

You posted a direct refutation of that sillyass claim yourself - remember your table of SAT scores vs family income?

The claim is that once you have recognized that black people have low IQs, all that segregation, terrorism, lead poisoning, police oppression, and employment bias either has nothing to do with race, or has no effect on black people.

It wasn't because they were black, see, it was because they were stupid. Either that, or it never happened.

And that's the kind of thinking involved in these absurd denials.

You can continue to deny the Science all you would like, but the data clearly show that when IQ score is controlled for at +100 +/-1 pt, there is no difference between white, yellow and black Americans in the lowest 5th quintile moving into the middle class.

They are the same.

"Race" had no effect.
None.
Zero.

These are the data and the scientific evidence shows through empiricism you are incorrect. A person trained to think, would adjust their view to align with the scientific evidence. You cannot do that. I fing that interesting in and of itself.

As an example, I was very very unhappy to read the evidence peaceful parenting had little affect on IQ. Given I spend a lot of time promoting peaceful parenting (which also involves training in reasoning and differences between induction and deduction). But, the data are what they are. So, I adjusted my belief to align with the objective data. It doens't mean peaceful parenting isn't important - it is important, only that training children to reason peacefully, through modeling, will not change their overall IQ.

Further, that there are different mean distributions of IQ is to be expected, given this a matter of there being different populations of humans, ones that were selected under different environmental pressures: exampled by Europe, in Africa and still other's on the ice plains of E. Asia. Given adult IQ is mostly genetic, it is not unexpected that different people have different phenotypes. That is what you would expect to have happened. For example, Europeans and Africans could be born with epicanthic folds, but it happens more likely by humans who's ancestors evolved in E. Asia.

Argue with biochemstry iceaura.

It should be noted, most poor people are white in America. Most low IQ people, are white in America. And many of the cities in the US with the most highly lead-contaminated drinking water, are *GAAAAAASP* mostly white.


You live in this little conspiracy-world where evil white people are poisoning black people with their racism. When in fact, the poisoning is happening all across America and is affecting more white people, than black people.
Reuters: The thousands of U.S. locales where lead poisoning is worse than in Flint.

There are mostly-white neighborhoods in California with higher lead in their water relative to Flint. the problem is some magical unicorn barf or 'white racism', the problem is Government. Government incompetence is destroying everything from education to medicine, to our money, to our water. Over and over and over we see the product of 100 years of Progressive Socialism.

The government is doing what it always does, destroying and undermining society. Want to know where you can get cheap clean water to drink? Oh, yes, that's right - at the store. From a private company.

But don't worry, Social Marxism will destroy whatever Government accidentally left unsoiled. Mark my words, in short order, sociopathic SJW Marxists will be demanding the Statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are pulled down and smashed, the cheers of functionally illiterate Government Schooled US Citizens.


Note: White people are, relatively speaking, some of the least racist people in America. Some of the most tolerant guilt-ridden people in the world. Which Social Marxists use against them in order to extract/milk resources out of - mainly via State enforced income tax redistribution. Resulting in lead-polluted city water and crap Government everything (ex: schools).

Note 2: In the coming decades, genetic engineering will make most of these arguments, moot.

 

[iceaura]

You can continue to deny the Science all you would like, but the data clearly show that when IQ score is controlled for at +100 +/-1 pt, there is no difference between white, yellow and black Americans in the lowest 5th quintile moving into the middle class.

So?
Your table directly refuted the nonsense claim that after controlling for IQ - in your case, using SAT scores that you have claimed are valid proxies - race has no effect on family income. In your table, if you don't control for race you can't get an IQ effect - a given IQ is worth anywhere from less than 20k to more than 200k, sometimes a higher IQ is worth less income than a lower one, you have a mess: unless you control for race.

You live in this little conspiracy-world where evil white people are poisoning black people with their racism. When in fact, the poisoning is happening all across America and is affecting more white people, than black people

What your link shows is that lead poisoning is a widespread problem that afflicts enough people to change the average IQ of entire populations.

Lead poisoning all across America affects black people (and brown people) in higher proportions and with greater severity than white people. You can see that in your Reuters link, if you netsearch their examples. Reuters calls the correlation "poverty" - but we all know who's disproportionately poor, right?

None of your IQ studies controlled for it.

And that's just one of the Jim Crow effects you are denying.

 

[Michael]

Your table directly refuted the nonsense claim that after controlling for IQ - in your case, using SAT scores that you have claimed are valid proxies - race has no effect on family income.

One more time, I know you are having a hard time processing this:

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).​

--o--
The Science Denialism is strong in this one.

Once IQ is controlled for, there is no effect of race for movement from lower socioeconomic status to the middle class. What the SAT scores show are three normality curves.

 

[Michael]

Lead poisoning all across America affects black people (and brown people) in higher proportions and with greater severity than white people. You can see that in your Reuters link, if you netsearch their examples. Reuters calls the correlation "poverty" - but we all know who's disproportionately poor, right?

1) Most poor people are white and have low IQ.
2) Black and white Canadians have average IQs similar to black and white Americans.
3) Lead poisoning is an effect of Governmental incompetence, not "white racism".
4) Once IQ is controlled for, anyone, of any color, move from the lowest quintile into the middle class - again, showing that this is an effect of IQ, which is mostly genetic, and not magical white racism.


Lead poisoning is an effect of Governmental incompetence, not "white racism".

 

[Michael]

Social Marxists have literally ran a progressive Jewish science professor off campus for not supporting this asinine idiotic crap called 'No Whites Day' on campus. And get this, at first, the administration said whites were not allowed onto campus, only later
did they reiterate to say it was voluntary, well, apparently not so much so.

Is it any wonder when the Left get a modicum of control, they immediately attempt to use violence against morally innocent humans trapped in their area of political dominance. Mark my words, if allowed to control the USA government, we will see Thomas Jefferson and George Washington monuments ripped down and their histories completely rewritten to reflect the insanity that is social Marxism.

At that point, only politically correct State approved Science will be allowed.

As a matter of fact, it's already happening.

 

[Schmelzer]

It's wrong.

Maybe, but you have not presented any evidence for this.

Such as your claim that the political and economic pressure on US scientists is to support AGW alarmism. Or your claim that doubting the AGW claims of the likely range of effects of the CO2 boost, which are the human share of the warming trend and its effects, is a reasonable position.

LOL. Doubting is not a position. Doubt means that I have no definite position. (And that we live in different universes, with completely different mass media in it, we have already clarified in the NYT discussion.)

Or your claim that honest media would of necessity have lots of news about benefits from AGW, and good organisms would be as likely to spread as bad under AGW, and more rain would be an obvious benefit no matter how distributed, and the fact that no current place is too hot for agriculture but some are too cold means AGW will not overheat places, and so forth and so on endlessly - a stream of garbage from a position of near-total ignorance.

Indeed, garbage - because not a single phrase accurately describes what I have claimed, they all contain explicit lies. Emphasis mine, and simply marks the lies.

The preponderance of negative claims reflects the reality of AGW as discovered by researchers so far, not a bias in the researchers themselves. They report "positive" findings regularly and often - it's just that the proportion of them is pretty small.

This is what you think and like very much, for your ideological reasons. For me, to compare the number of good news and bad news in scientific papers is the most unreasonable thing one can do. Because this relation is the most likely one to be heavily distorted by political pressure.

The case of explicit falsification of scientific data because of political pressure is an exception. The case of not doing some research once the expected results are politically incorrect, or to give a bad review to a paper with politically incorrect results, or to give up attempts to publish such results are, instead, quite common and have to be expected. The result is that you can more or less trust each particular paper, but to make conclusions about the seriousness of the situation based on counts of the number of papers considering bad things vs. those considering good things gives totally misleading results.

And, again, it is not even problematic if thousands of papers handle a single minor problem caused by AGW, and nobody at all cares about a much more important advantage. The advantage can be used anyway, and will, not by scientists but by peasants seeing the obvious new chances, thus, not much is lost by this ignorance. Instead, those thousands of papers may help to solve the problem or to minimize the related harm.

So, the proportions of "good" vs. "bad" papers will be the most politically distorted part of science under political pressure, thus, the most unreliable one. And this is not even really harmful in this case. What is harmful is the misinformation of the public based on such distorted proportions.

?What are you talking about?

Ancient Egypt, a state based almost completely on agriculture as described in your horror scenario. There is, essentially, desert, no precipitation. Agriculture is based on the river Nile, and possible essentially only inside the Nile valley. And every year there was, regularly, a complete flooding of the entire Nile valley. Despite this, they not only managed to survive, but even left a lot of nice pyramids and so on.

 

[iceaura]

Indeed, garbage - because not a single phrase accurately describes what I have claimed, they all contain explicit lies. Emphasis mine, and simply marks the lies.

No, they are not lies.
The absurdity of your denials extends to your own posting, apparently, but I specifically noted and responded to - for one small example - your mockery of the AGW warnings about heat waves, and your dismissal of them by pointing to tropical forests and claiming they were the hottest places with adequate water now. I'm not going to forget that. You have posted (and defended at length) a great deal of very ignorant bs on this topic, and I am going to bring it up whenever I want to.

For me, to compare the number of good news and bad news in scientific papers is the most unreasonable thing one can do. Because this relation is the most likely one to be heavily distorted by political pressure.

Says the guy who has based his entire view of AGW on his comparison of good news and bad news in the fucking media.

You are simply and completely wrong about the political and economic pressure on the science, for starters - you have mistaken its direction, mistaken its source, mistaken its effects, by badly reasoning from media you have poorly observed.
But worse, you have used your mistaken assumptions of political and economic pressure on the science to evaluate the physical reality of AGW - as reported by the researchers, discovered by the people who investigated the physical situation. The result is an absurd denial of physical reality - AGW as it has been discovered, described, measured, analyzed, and predicted, is something you doubt exists.

"The preponderance of negative claims reflects the reality of AGW as discovered by researchers so far, not a bias in the researchers themselves. They report "positive" findings regularly and often - it's just that the proportion of them is pretty small."
This is what you think and like very much, for your ideological reasons

That, right there, is you denying AGW. You ascribe the physical reality, as discovered and analyzed and reported, to ideological bias.

And we see that pattern in most of the absurd denials. "Fake news".

 

[Michael]

Hey, look, another group of people who aline with iceaura's take on "race" vis–à–vis Critical Race Theory.

Only this time it's in Paris, France.

France24: Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo on Sunday called for a black feminist festival in the French capital to be banned, saying it was "prohibited to white people" from attending.

LOL

I mentioned this to some Japanese, they politely commented that it appeared insane, you know, given this was in FRANCE. Such a thing would never happen in Japan. Ever.

 

[Michael]

So, two (almost assuredly Progressive) white women take a trip to Mexico.
While there, they find they really love the food. So, they try to figure out how it's made.
Then they come back with the neat idea of opening a Burrito Stand.
It works out quite well.

Well well well, not so well.

Two white women accused of cultural appropriation shut down their Oregon burrito shop.

LOLOLOL

Welcome to life in American. Too funny

Cultureal Marxism is doing to 'culture' what economic Marxism did to the economy.
Destroying it.

Like I said, I'm calling it: Within the next 10 - 15 years the Thomas Jefferson and George Washinton monuments will be pulled down in the name of Progressive Socialism.This act will be seen by future historians as the beginning of the end of what was the USA. Thus, we traveled through 3 phases, the first was extremely limited government and relatively high levels of civil liberty thus self-rule. Then Progressive Statism in the form of Central Banking and Labor Taxation/Theft backed generational T-Bond sales (you know, to pay for all the free-sh*t). This culminated in a special flavor of Authoritarian Statism: Cultural Marxism and the ensuing (and inevitable) undermining of social norms/society, ending with its collapse.

The nice thing is, this is where bloated government collapses in on itself, resulting in a new Nation State, with a limited government (which is required to regenerate the prosperity that was exhausted by the Progressive Statists of the last).

 

[Schmelzer]

No, they are not lies.
The absurdity of your denials extends to your own posting, apparently, but I specifically noted and responded to - for one small example - your mockery of the AGW warnings about heat waves, and your dismissal of them by pointing to tropical forests and claiming they were the hottest places with adequate water now. I'm not going to forget that. You have posted (and defended at length) a great deal of very ignorant bs on this topic, and I am going to bring it up whenever I want to.

They are lies. Even you know that I have not made any denial of your beloved heat waves, naming this "mockery" instead of "denial". I'm sure about this, because they are irrelevant to my argument. I do not need any dismissal of the possibility that after heavy global warming some regions too hot for any agriculture may appear. All I need is to see the actual state - with a lot of territory too cold, or too dry, for agriculture. but none too hot and too humid for agriculture.

Says the guy who has based his entire view of AGW on his comparison of good news and bad news in the fucking media.

Yes, because this is an easy way to establish that the fucking media lie, intentionally and in an organized way.

Simply think about the question what would be the optimal temperature for the Earth. There has to be such an optimum - far too hot means no life, far too cold means no life too, we have life. So, there has to be somewhere between a temperature which is optimal for life. A simple mathematical theorem. Then, next question, what is this optimal temperature: higher or lower than now? I think the situation is clear enough - higher than now. This answer is quite obvious too, given that there is a whole continent completely unusable because too cold, and large parts of three other continents similarly almost unusable, but with nothing unusable because too hot. At optimal temperature, one would expect that regions too hot and regions too cold would be of comparable size.

There is full agreement that a climate change in too short time, even if toward a better average temperature, would be a problem, because it requires a lot of investment for adaptation to the new, changed conditions. This is a general problem of change occurring too fast. Therefore I have no problem with accepting that a warming, if too fast, has negative consequences. Even in the sum - if there is some positive effect, and some negative one, it is always hard to find out what is more important. (Fortunately, it is not a really relevant question. The relevant questions are how to make the best use of the positive effects and to minimize harm from the negative effects.)

And when, in this situation, we see in the media a presentation where the global warming has 100% negative consequences, we simply know this is a lie. And even if we learn that 90% of the scientific papers about this consider negative consequences, this does not mean that the media presentation is somehow justified.

But worse, you have used your mistaken assumptions of political and economic pressure on the science to evaluate the physical reality of AGW - as reported by the researchers, discovered by the people who investigated the physical situation. The result is an absurd denial of physical reality - AGW as it has been discovered, described, measured, analyzed, and predicted, is something you doubt exists.

You lie, as usual. The last sentence is simply polemics of the worst type - suggesting I deny AGW itself, as if I have expressed any doubt that human activity raises CO2 level, or that raising CO2 levels will lead to some increase in temperature - so that I have no doubt at all that there exists some AGW. So, you are a liar.

Then, the description I have given above does in no way rely on my impression about the media. The basic consideration is based on simple and trivial reasoning about reality. The evaluation of the media, which gives the 100% negative picture, is simply used to establish this same media bias.

That there will be a corresponding political pressure on science too, and that this has some influence on science, btw of a quite predictable type, is a general argument, I have not seen good counterarguments yet. (Even in iceaura world, where the media seem to write too much about fake positive results of AGW, there is also political pressure on science in the same direction as in the media. BTW, that you live in some other universe, where the media far too often describe wrong positive effects of AGW (and, not unexpected, NYT writes 63% pro-Trump), we have already clarified, no need to repeat these iceaura-facts all the time.)

But I have not used it to reject any particular claim by any particular peer-reviewed paper. I do not use it to evaluate scientific papers. And my theory about how political pressure influences science does not suggest that it can be used in such a way - because it tells that the truth of particular scientific papers is what is least influenced. It is also not used in my basic consideration above.

 

[iceaura]

You can continue to deny the Science all you would like, but the data clearly show that when IQ score is controlled for at +100 +/-1 pt, there is no difference between white, yellow and black Americans in the lowest 5th quintile moving into the middle class.

They are the same.

"Race" had no effect.
None.
Zero.

You keep repeating your misunderstanding of your study there, and refusing to look at the other study you posted that directly contradicts it, and I keep asking the same question:
So?
Are you trying to deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US on the basis of the supposed fact that black people live in poverty because they have low IQs? Are you trying to argue that the known suppressors of IQ have no effect on black people, and therefore Jim Crow had no effect on black people? What's your point here?

 

[Michael]

You keep repeating your misunderstanding of your study there,

Let's see what the authors wrote:

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

--o--
I got an idea, how about we interpret the data like this: 17-year-olds with high-IQ, regardless of ethnic background, go on to have occupational success. IOWs, when IQ-score is controlled for, there is no effect of 'race'.

It really is that simple.

What you may want to ask yourself is why you continue to race-bait? Why? No one alive today had anything to do with the Slavery of two centuries ago (although it is important to note 5000 years of Slavery was primarily ended by white Christian men). AND no one alive today made up the Jim Crow Laws of last century.

And lastly, and most importantly, when you control for IQ-score, guess what iceaura? You find that there is NO EFFECT of Jim Crow and NO EFFECT of Slavery.

And what else? IQ is mostly genetic.

...the supposed fact that black people live in poverty because they have low IQs?

No no no. Not the 'supposed' fact. What you meant to write was the: The 30 year long investigation and peer-reviewed, empirical study, scientific evidenced "fact". Oh, and you didn't mean to single out black people like a race-baiting racist, what you meant to write was that on average white, yellow, red and black people live in the middle class because they have high-IQ. Whereas white, yellow, red and black people with low-IQ, according to the SCIENCE, go on to live in a Government Welfare ghetto.

Yeah, thank the Gawds we don't have compassionate Christian, Jewish, and Private Charity caring for people. Nope. Statism solved this problem. Create a shit-hole Government-run Ghetto, force white people to pay for it through income tax, then blame white people when it turns to sh*t like everything else the State touched.


Note: If you are confused, feel free to open up the link and dig through the data yourself, because, that's what the evidence shows to be the case.

Too bad for you and your culture-destroying promulgation of Critical Race Theory / the last form of bigotry accepted: White-Bigotry. Yes, let's see how shutting down evil white taco-stands, ending free-speech at University, busting up cafe's and running science professors off campuses does for Social Marxism. My guess is..... the counter-punch will be a bitch. And, if I know Americans, it'll probably be full on Police Statism.

That's what we are now. Thanks to Progressives, everyone's a Statist (except those teeny percentage of Libertardians, LOL - those evil f*ckers who keep saying we need less GiverMint and more privatization and charity. Evil sound money, civil liberty, and common law... like that sh*t ever worked)

A Police State will be the legacy of Social Marxism.

 

[iceaura]

They are lies. Even you know that I have not made any denial of your beloved heat waves, naming this "mockery" instead of "denial".

Now you attempt to bullshit your way out. What happened, you look up some actual science and realize how ignorant and careless and silly your former posting was?

Yes, because this is an easy way to establish that the fucking media lie, intentionally and in an organized way.

So? Media lying was not the issue (although you were wrong about it, that doesn't matter). The issue has been your assessment of AGW based on your assessment of the media.

But I have not used it to reject any particular claim by any particular peer-reviewed paper.

Strawman (as well as false, btw.). You use it to deny AGW, the reality described by all the papers, collectively.

Like this:

You lie, as usual. The last sentence is simply polemics of the worst type - suggesting I deny AGW itself, as if I have expressed any doubt that human activity raises CO2 level, or that raising CO2 levels will lead to some increase in temperature - so that I have no doubt at all that there exists some AGW. So, you are a liar.

Agreeing that some Jews were killed by some Germans does not exonerate the Holocaust denier, but instead highlights the absurdity of their denial.
I have consistently quoted and directed your attention to the exact posting in which you deny AGW. "Right there", I point out. That is information for you.

And like this:

And when, in this situation, we see in the media a presentation where the global warming has 100% negative consequences, we simply know this is a lie.

My local newspaper publishes occasional positive or semi-positive consequences - I posted an example. So it's not 100% - let's agree on some guess, like 95%, how about.
Your problem is: that disproportion is not a lie. (They may lie in other ways, but they aren't lying in that one). That is the reality of the situation. The findings show that AGW really is almost certain to be almost entirely negative, with only scattered and local exceptions, for a long time - a century or two at least. That reality, that probability, is what you are denying.

And like this:

That there will be a corresponding political pressure on science too,

You exaggerated the pressure, and got its direction wrong. You made a mistake in the "correspondence", and ended up claiming strong pressure to support AGW and verify it and not do research that conflicted with the alarming warnings. That was a blunder, caused by ignorance. That was how you came to doubt AGW - deny the reality described by the research findings.

The equivalent in Holocaust denial would be someone doubting that millions of Jews were deliberately targeted and killed by the Third Reich government of Germany. The denier would of course acknowledge that some Jews were killed, and allow specific papers showing specific Jews were killed, and if they were like you they would claim that admitting some Jews were killed by some Germans meant they weren't denying the Holocaust
- but they would claim that based on the fact that there are almost no media accounts showing any benefits of the Third Reich for the Jewish people in Germany (despite the improvement in German prosperity and pride and so forth, so that many examples of such government leading to benefits for people can be posted), claim the bias revealed in these one-sided media accounts would clearly have had a "corresponding effect" on the research. And so they would presume bias in the research, and justify doubting the Holocaust.

 

[iceaura]

I got an idea, how about we interpret the data like this: 17-year-olds with high-IQ, regardless of ethnic background, go on to have occupational success. IOWs, when IQ-score is controlled for, there is no effect of 'race'.

It really is that simple.

And you really are that stubborn in your refusal to take a statistics or genetics class. Or even read the links I provide - at least of of them up there dealt with those studies.

Take a look at your SAT and family income score table - same pattern, same correspondence as the army, but obviously a large - huge, striking, dominating - effect of race visible in the raw data. The IQ corresponding to a 980 SAT earns more than ten times the family income for a black family than for a white family.

And even sillier, this is where you take it:

And lastly, and most importantly, when you control for IQ-score, guess what iceaura? You find that there is NO EFFECT of Jim Crow and NO EFFECT of Slavery.

And what else? IQ is mostly genetic.

How did you get that nonsense from that study? Actually, the more interesting question is "Why did you - ".

You could clean up and present a study with a chance of supporting your absurd denial at least a little - not much, but at least something in the right direction.
For starters, how about controlling your IQ scores for the effects of racism - at a minimum, the well known ones. Nobody has ever done that. That would be step one.
Then, you establish your "races" genetically, so your genetic inferences will make some kind of sense when applied to a "race". Nobody has ever done that.
Then you pay attention to such factors as the Flynn effect, and the greater variance in inheritability of IQ displayed by the poor in general and US black people especially - you control for such factors, and include them in your analysis, and recognize their implications.
And if you have anything left to discount Jim Crow with, you do it intelligently - factor by factor, and not blanket denial of what nobody can deny without absurdity.

 

[Schmelzer]

The issue has been your assessment of AGW based on your assessment of the media.

And this assessment exists only in your fantasy.

My local newspaper publishes occasional positive or semi-positive consequences - I posted an example. So it's not 100% - let's agree on some guess, like 95%, how about.

No problem, anyway 100% was only a polemical figure.

The equivalent in Holocaust denial would be someone doubting that millions of Jews were deliberately targeted and killed by the Third Reich government of Germany. The denier would of course acknowledge that some Jews were killed, and allow specific papers showing specific Jews were killed, and if they were like you they would claim that admitting some Jews were killed by some Germans meant they weren't denying the Holocaust

No, it would not be equivalent at all. Because your example would deny a large range of possible numbers of victims. I have not denied any particular number proposed about the size of the effect. So, the equivalent would be a guy who says that he is not a specialist in WW II history, but has a quite general distrust in history as a science (because of the large record of falsification of history by historians all over the world) and therefore does not trust in any claims about WW II history. (We have already clarified that this guy is a Holocaust denier, because he does not support the Party line.)
BTW, I see you have preferred not to mention at all my consideration about the optimal temperature. So, a simple questionaire:

1.) Do you agree that there exists some optimal temperature for humanity? (To avoid a discussion about values used to define "optimal", one can simply take the production of biomass as a replacement: More biomass produced means better.)
2.) What would be, IYO, the relation between optimal and actual temperature? Optimal would be warmer or colder than now?
3.) If optimal is warmer than now, the transition would be nonetheless, without doubt, costly. So, a neutral consideration would include also a large part of negative news related with transition costs. But this would be on the background of overwhelming positive effects. Would you nonetheless accept a 95% negative reporting as appropriate?

 

[iceaura]

And this assessment exists only in your fantasy.

No, you've posted it several times in several forms - usually as "doubt" of something.

Because your example would deny a large range of possible numbers of victims. I have not denied any particular number proposed about the size of the effect.

You have denied the entire range - and it's pretty large - of AGW as it is, the AGW established via research etc.

BTW, I see you have preferred not to mention at all my consideration about the optimal temperature

I did, briefly. Allow med to do so again:
It's irrelevant. It's also meaningless - an empty concept.

(To avoid a discussion about values used to define "optimal", one can simply take the production of biomass as a replacement: More biomass produced means better.)

That makes no sense. You should not post like this, when you have no idea what you are talking about.

3.) If optimal is warmer than now, the transition would be nonetheless, without doubt, costly. So, a neutral consideration would include also a large part of negative news related with transition costs. But this would be on the background of overwhelming positive effects. Would you nonetheless accept a 95% negative reporting as appropriate?

Let's take a look at an example: the transition from a worse temperature for mammals to better temperature for mammals happened about 63 million years ago, when a large asteroid hit the ocean off the Yucatan Peninsula and changed the climate rapidly in favor of mammals.

Not the mammals of the time, of course - future mammals.

I would regard 95% negative news of imminent asteroid strike, at the time, as appropriate.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, you've posted it several times in several forms - usually as "doubt" of something.

Yes, doubt is not allowed in your totalitarian worldview. One has to support the Party line even if one has no idea about the facts , else one is a denier.

You have denied the entire range - and it's pretty large - of AGW as it is, the AGW established via research etc.

A lie. (Or the Orwellian use of "denied".)

It's irrelevant. It's also meaningless - an empty concept.

You obviously don't like the question. No wonder.

Let's take a look at an example: the transition from a worse temperature for mammals to better temperature for mammals happened about 63 million years ago, when a large asteroid hit the ocean off the Yucatan Peninsula and changed the climate rapidly in favor of mammals.
Not the mammals of the time, of course - future mammals.
I would regard 95% negative news of imminent asteroid strike, at the time, as appropriate.

Me too. But this is, of course, not an answer. We are talking here not about what would be optimal for some not yet existing species, those future mammals. This is irrelevant simply because we are not talking about AGW effects in millions of years, but in hundreds of years. So possible evolution does not matter at all. For the animals existing at that time the hit was clearly negative - and, btw, a cooling.

So, you refuse to answer the simple question which temperature would be optimal for actually existing species. Because the answer is obvious enough: The optimal temperature would be higher than the actual one.

 

[iceaura]

You obviously don't like the question. No wonder.

You have no idea what your question means. You wouldn't know an answer if you saw one. How do I know? You have seen one, and you say you haven't.

"You have denied the entire range - and it's pretty large - of AGW as it is, the AGW established via research etc."
A lie. (Or the Orwellian use of "denied".)

No. You have stated, for example, that the direct and established temperature boost from the CO2 boost was logarithmic, that the expected boost from that cause was maybe a degree or two total, and that was the only established and unarguable fact of AGW. You stated that your doubt of the rest - everything except that - was not absurd, but legitimate. That denied the entire range of AGW as established by research etc.
That's just one. You have denied AGW several times, in several ways.

Me too. But this is, of course, not an answer. We are talking here not about what would be optimal for some not yet existing species, those future mammals.

We were talking about the cost of transition. You dismissed it far too casually. I posted an example of a high cost.

Besides: You are, quite possibly, talking about a significant evolutionary driver. Whether you understand that or not, in your stubborn insistence on remaining ignorant, that is included in any discussion of changing the temperature range to an "optimal" one. (Noticed I fixed your nonsensical "optimal temperature" to the somewhat more meaningful "optimal temperature range" - you're welcome.)

You are definitely, beyond doubt, talking about a cultural change driver with physiological implications. If you adjust the temps to something your deluded mind has convinced you is optimal for human beings now, it is certain they will adjust - and a new optimum would appear. You can chase the illusion of an optimal climate clear into a new species, given enough time. That's the long run.

Meanwhile, in the short run: Definitely you are talking about human beings with significantly different agricultural and industrial and geo-political setups, including a small but far from negligible possibility of no industrial civilization at all. Would that be "optimal"? You might have more freedom, without industrial civilization - the most free people I have ever heard of were the male Northern Cheyenne between about 1550 (when they got horses) and 1800 (when the industrial civilizations began to encroach). Freedom is optimal, for you, iirc.

So, you refuse to answer the simple question which temperature would be optimal for actually existing species. Because the answer is obvious enough: The optimal temperature would be higher than the actual one.

Or lower but differently distributed. Australia, for example, could use cooler temps in the form of traveling cold fronts - an entire continent, that is, whose cooling would change the global land average.

Actually, I did throw in - back when I first pointed out how idiotic and irrelevant the question was, and noted where you got it from as well - my personal opinion that the planet was too cold for us. I derived that from the observation that the too cold areas were larger than the almost too hot ones.

But of course you can't solve that by boosting the average temperature. You have to control distribution. And the last thing we have with AGW is control.

I also have stated, frequently and I assume in response to you at some time, that the AGW warming is predicted to hit first, hardest, and most significantly, in the exact northern hemisphere places that are too cold. By your nonsense logic that means an improvement in the ambient temperature regime, which in your silly reasoning means an approach to an optimum. I can't help you with that. Life is too short, and the first step - you recognizing the significance of your ignorance, and desisting from trolling these threads with your assumptions - is not a realistic possibility.

One cannot normally rid a denier of an absurd denial via reason. If it were possible, usually there would be no absurd denial in the first place. It's like the croquet game in Alice in Wonderland - the tools of reason have been corrupted in advance.

 

[Michael]

RE: Science Denying

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).​

If you think YOU have found a flaw in their analysis, then YOU write to the journal and have the paper retracted. It's this process called "Science" where peer-review is followed by publication and then anyone can scrutinize the data. I provided a link to the data.

Further, there is ZERO good evidence that 'white racism' or white people are 'poisoning' black people and in any way significantly affecting the IQ of black people (or yellow people for that matter). What there is good evidence of, is complete utter governmental incompetence leading to some areas in America having lead-polluted tap water (often in communities almost >70% 'white').

IF there's an effect of lead on IQ score, then this is the fault of Progressive Socialism. Socialism / Statism is doing to drinking water what it did to education: Destroying it. However, we do NOT have good evidence that low IQ white and black people have different averages due to lead, noise, parenting styles or missing nutrients like Omega-3 or 6.

Further, the primary reason why high IQ score begets socioeconomic success is better brain function is more marketable in a modern society. However, thanks to Progressive Socialism, low IQ individuals are LOCKED (physically barred by the militant arm of the State) from even participating freely in trade. Again, an effect of Progressive Socialism. Many markets would be open to them, because the products and services traded do not require high-IQ. This is in fact why regulatory capture exists. Not to protect the individual, the free-market would do that, this is to prevent low-IQ poor people from competing. Minimum wage was for the exact same reason and has had the exact same effect: destroying the lives of poor people, mostly black people.


Are you in favor of freedom iceaura? The right to engage in trade under common law, without regulatory capture and rent-seeking? Well? Free market healthcare? No. No you are not. Why? Because you're a Statist.


The only thing Progressive Socialism does do well is lie. They lie to the lowest-IQ people with promises of free-shit while playing off their low-level emotion control and lower ability to plan for the future. Essentially Progressives are the worse of the worse. Exemplified in their current trend of white racism vis-a-vis Critical Race Theory and Social Marxism.


And you know what the sadest part is? Statism is for the most part psychological. People like the 'idea' of this magical State taking care of them. It's their belief. Their religion. Well, if you ask me, that's the role of the Church (in Western societies). The State is only relegated to a limited role: common law enforcement and protect private property rights. Currently, our Progressive Socialist State does the opposite, it enforces regulatory-capture, many times killing morally innocent "Citizens" of the State - and steals their private property.

 

[iceaura]

RE: Science Denying

Your source claims a black IQ of 85, which is twenty years out of date. The current black IQ is over 90 and rising. I posted at least two links for you, to that effect.

IF there's an effect of lead on IQ score, then this is the fault of Progressive Socialism

So Progressive Socialism hurts black IQ scores (because lies), but Jim Crow does not (because genetics). Did I read that right?

The primary reason why high IQ score begets socioeconomic success is better brain function is more marketable in a modern society.

According to your posted table of SAT scores, low IQ begets socioeconomic success in black people.